What is the indication that those who see an “abomination” in a journalist's mustache do not show the same sensitivity in the face of allegations and political contradictions that shake the public opinion?
POLITICS STARTS WHERE THE ARGUMENT ENDS
Politics also has an aesthetic.
It has a morality.
There is a level.
And above all, the language a leader uses is as much a mirror of the office he or she represents as it is of his or her character.
For this reason, there are some words that betray not only their owner but also the political understanding they represent.
Özgür Özel's description of Atakan Sönmez, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's press advisor, as “someone with a disgusting mustache” is exactly such a statement.
Because what is being discussed here is not a journalist's mustache.
What is being discussed here is the level at which the leader of Turkey's main opposition party chooses to respond to criticism.
One can't help but ask:
A political leader who sees “abomination” in a journalist's mustache, what does he see in dozens of debates on the country's agenda?
Why doesn't he show the same sensitivity to the appearance of a journalist as he does to the political questions that the public wants answers to?
Why is it that those who are careful enough to look at a journalist's face do not look at the content of criticism with the same care?
Because the answer to this has already been given in the history of politics.
Those with strong ideas don't mess with people.
It deals with ideas.
Those with strong arguments respond to opinions, not images.
Confident politicians target their opponents' arguments, not their faces.
But where there are no answers, personalization begins.
Where arguments weaken, contempt begins.
Where questions become heavy, ridicule begins.
And in the end, instead of talking about the country's issues, politics starts talking about a journalist's mustache.
This is precisely why it is not just about Atakan Sonmez.
It is not about a journalist either.
The issue is the political reflexes that have recently become more and more visible in the CHP leadership.
Caution.
When criticism comes, instead of responding, a language that targets the critic emerges.
When questions are raised, instead of producing answers, there is an approach that seeks to discredit those who ask questions.
And this approach is becoming more and more personalized.
But the essence of democratic politics is the opposite.
Democracy is not afraid of criticism.
He does not see criticism as hostility.
He does not insult his critics.
He responds to criticism.
For this very reason, the sentence based on Atakan Sönmez's mustache is not only a stylistic problem.
This statement is also a sign of a larger mental transformation in the CHP in recent years.
And this is perhaps the most thought-provoking aspect.
Because when the compass of a political movement is broken, concepts lose their meaning first.
Then the principles become blurred.
Then people get in the way of ideas.
And eventually, instead of discussing ideas, politics starts discussing images of people.
This is exactly what is happening today.
And that is why what needs to be discussed is not a journalist's mustache, but why the CHP's political language has come to this point.
Because this is where the real story begins.
WHEN THOSE WHO DEAL WITH THE MOUSTACHE COME ACROSS HISTORY
As soon as you start describing a person by their moustache and not by their ideas, you are not just targeting one person.
Without realizing it, you also reveal your own intellectual level.
Because throughout history, great ideas were born from people's thoughts, not from their faces.
Nobody read Nietzsche because of his mustache.
No one placed Mark Twain at the top of world literature because of his mustache.
No one liked İhsan Yüce because of his mustache.
People talked about their ideas, their work, their character and their legacy.
But it is interesting...
Throughout history, those who could not stand against great ideas often dealt with people's images, not their ideas.
Because it is easy to attack the image.
It is difficult to respond to the idea.
It is easy to underestimate a person's mustache.
But it takes work to refute what he says.
It requires knowledge.
It takes courage.
This is precisely why the sentence based on Atakan Sönmez's mustache does not actually say a lot about Atakan Sönmez, but about the political mentality that made that sentence.
Even more ironic is this:
You either like Atakan Sonmez or you don't.
You can agree or disagree.
But if a man has an opinion, he obviously doesn't hide it.
While many people in Turkey change their minds according to the table they sit at, change their identity according to the hall they sit in, change their position according to the podium they sit on, it is also known that Atakan Sönmez does not feel the need to hide the line he has been defending for years.
What is really scarce in Turkey today is not ideas, but backbone.
Because people no longer calculate what they think, they calculate which opinion will bring more applause.
This is precisely why a journalist's mustache is not the issue.
The point is that those who cannot answer what a journalist says turn around and talk about his mustache.
There is another contradiction.
Those who have been talking for years about the wrongness of judging people based on their lifestyles...
Those who have been telling for years that differences are richness...
Those who say they have been fighting against marginalization for years...
In the face of criticism, he can turn and target a person's physical appearance.
So some principles exist only in speeches from the rostrum.
It turns out that some values are only remembered when they are applauded.
Because true democracy is not tolerance of those who support you.
True democracy means being able to show the same respect to those who criticize you.
True freedom means being able to defend the right to speak not only for those who applaud but also for those who oppose.
And true political maturity is to be able to deal with a person's ideas, not his mustache.
This is precisely why the sentence based on Atakan Sönmez's mustache is not an ordinary polemic.
This sentence is a small but highly revealing symbol of a larger transformation in the CHP in recent years.
Because when a political movement stops discussing ideas, it starts talking about people.
Then people start talking about the images of people.
And in the end, labels replace ideas.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening today.
And this story is not just a mustache story.
This story is the beginning of a much bigger story about the CHP's ideological compass.
“FROM ”THE FAR LEFTISTS AMONG US“ TO ”THE DISGUSTING BIOTCH"
In fact, the expression used about Atakan Sönmez's mustache is not an isolated incident.
This promise is not a beginning, but a conclusion.
Because in political movements, before the language breaks down, the measures break down.
Principles erode before style decays.
The compass disappears before the words harden.
This is exactly what is happening today.
Look carefully at the political picture of the last few years.
Once upon a time, the CHP's identity was defined by social democracy, labor, organizational culture, party memory and ideological consistency.
Today, a different picture is gradually emerging.
They talk about daily political needs rather than the principles the party has stood for over the years.
Current positions are more important than political backgrounds.
Instant alliances rather than ideological allegiances are becoming decisive.
And while all this is happening, one of the messages to the public is this:
“The most leftist among us...”
This is perhaps one of the most ironic statements in recent political history.
Because politics sometimes challenges one's patience, not one's memory.
On one side, people who have spent their lives in CHP organizations...
On one side, party workers who have worked for decades starting from the youth branches...
On the one hand, people who have spent their lives in the social democratic struggle...
On the other side, names that until yesterday stood outside the CHP's political line are suddenly presented as “the most leftist among us”...
One can't help but ask:
When did the measure of leftism change?
Since when has current loyalty started to be taken as a basis, not the political past?
Since when has ideological consistency become secondary?
And since when did a journalist's mustache become a political issue?
Because these are not independent events.
On the contrary, they are different parts of the same story.
When principles retreat, people come to the fore.
When ideas weaken, loyalty becomes important.
When the ideological backbone erodes, daily political needs become decisive.
And in the end, people become controversial not for what they say, but for how they look.
There is another remarkable point.
There are struggles that are etched in the memory of Turkey's political history.
These struggles have come at a cost.
It was formed by prisons.
It is formed by shoots.
It was created at the cost of lives.
This is why it is an extremely serious business to turn the weight of historical struggles into the material for daily political calculations.
Because history is not a propaganda pamphlet.
However, the picture that has emerged in the CHP in recent years brings with it serious criticism that historical references are also used according to daily political needs.
For this very reason, the sentence based on Atakan Sönmez's mustache cannot be seen as a simple polemic.
That statement is the manifestation of a long-standing ideological confusion.
Because real leftism is not about dealing with people's appearance.
Real leftism is being able to tolerate criticism.
Real leftism is being able to respond to different ideas.
Real leftism is not trying to silence people but to persuade them.
It is precisely this question that is at the center of today's debate:
Is it really principles that are under discussion in the CHP?
Or is it a new political order in which principles have long since been replaced by personal loyalties?
This is the question that awaits an answer.
And the debate that started over Atakan Sönmez's moustache comes back to this very point.
It is the beginning of a much bigger story about the CHP's ideological compass.
“FROM ”ASSHOLE“ TO ”DISGUSTING BIOTCH": FALLING LEVELS IN POLITICS
There are no coincidences in politics.
Certainly not in the language used.
Every word a politician utters reflects not only the mood of the moment but also the political culture he or she represents.
Therefore, what needs to be discussed today is not just something said to Atakan Sonmez.
What needs to be discussed is the general character of the political language of the CHP chairman in recent times.
This is because when events that seem disconnected when viewed individually are juxtaposed, a different picture emerges.
Expressions used on the floor of parliament...
Condescending remarks against political opponents...
Harsh and personalized attacks on critics...
And finally his choice to describe a journalist as having a “disgusting mustache”...
None of these are independent of each other.
On the contrary, they are different reflections of the same political understanding.
Because a strong politician makes his arguments speak, not his anger.
A strong politician does not try to diminish people.
It tries to magnify its own arguments.
A strong politician fights not with the appearance of his opponent but with his vision.
However, the picture that has emerged recently increasingly points to something else.
As criticism increases, the language becomes harsher.
As the questions increase, the tone becomes harsher.
The bigger the allegations, the more personalized they become.
But the logic of democratic politics is the opposite.
When the questions increase, the answers should become stronger.
When criticism multiplies, arguments must multiply.
When allegations grow, openness must increase.
But when openness is replaced by anger, politics becomes more and more personalized.
And this is where the leadership debate arises.
Because leadership is not just about speaking to crowds.
Leadership is also about managing your anger.
Leadership is being able to tolerate criticism.
Leadership is the ability to maintain a level playing field when responding to even the harshest opponent.
Look at the political leaders who have lasted throughout history.
It was not the loudness of their voices that made them powerful.
It was the weight of the language they used.
Today, the picture is different.
Economic programs are not at the center of the debate about the leader of Turkey's main opposition party...
Not a vision of democracy...
Not social projects...
The expressions he used are included.
This in itself is thought-provoking.
Because the language of a political movement becomes its destiny over time.
As personalization increases, politics shrinks.
The more insults, the weaker the argument.
As the image is discussed, the idea is withdrawn.
And eventually politics becomes about people's moustaches instead of talking about the problems of the country.
It is precisely for this reason that the expression used against Atakan Sönmez has opened not a person but a political understanding to discussion.
Because the public now looks not only at the words spoken, but also at the mentality that makes those words possible.
And more and more questions are being asked about that mentality.
This is perhaps the most disturbing thing.
Because it is no longer about a journalist.
The issue is no longer a polemic.
The issue is the direction in which the CHP's political language and leadership has evolved.
And this question is being asked louder and louder every day.
WHAT DO THOSE WHO CALL THE BIOWL DISGUSTING SEE IN SCANDALS?
we are actually circling around a single question.
What do those who see “abomination” in a journalist's mustache see in political debates?
Or rather, what does he not see?
Because this is where the whole issue comes to a head.
Imagine a political leader...
Careful enough to notice a journalist's mustache.
Precise enough to describe a critic's appearance.
He is angry enough to obsess over the details of an opponent's face.
But the same sensitivity is not seen in the face of questions that the public wants answers to.
This is precisely the contradiction that attracts people's attention.
Because politics is a matter of priorities.
And priorities reveal character.
What a political leader is angry about is as important as what he or she is not angry about.
What it sees as a problem is as important as what it does not see as a problem.
What it ignores is as important as what it puts on its agenda.
This is precisely why the expression used against Atakan Sönmez is not an ordinary polemic.
It also sets out a list of priorities.
The public is asking:
Why can't you see the discomfort you see in a journalist's mustache in political contradictions?
Why don't you devote the energy you devote to the image of a journalist to the questions the public wants answers to?
Why don't you use the harsh words you find to describe a journalist for issues at the center of political debate?
Because people don't just look at the words spoken anymore.
He also looks at the unspoken words.
It doesn't just look at the reactions.
It also looks at the reactions that are not given.
It's not just anger.
It also looks at the direction of anger.
And that is precisely why today's debate is not about a journalist's mustache.
Today's debate is about the CHP's political language.
Today's debate is about tolerance of criticism.
The debate today is about the quality of political leadership.
Because throughout history the same fact has not changed.
Ideas are defeated by ideas.
Arguments are refuted by arguments.
Criticism is met with answers.
Attacking a person's image does not remove any question.
It does not silence any criticism.
It does not end any debate.
On the contrary, it causes unanswerable questions to grow even bigger.
Perhaps that is why, after all this discussion, only one question will remain:
Why can't those who are outraged enough to talk about a journalist's mustache show the same determination when it comes to the real issues Turkey is talking about?
Because politics sometimes gives itself away in a sentence.
And sometimes a party's major crisis of direction fits into a single sentence.
Perhaps the phrase “disgusting mustache” is exactly such a phrase.
Not the one about Atakan Sonmez...
It is a sentence that describes the political understanding that made that statement.
And the ruthless memory of politics often remembers longer not what people criticize, but what they cannot criticize.
So what remains today is not a mustache debate.
What remains is this:
It is a question of what those who see “abomination” in a journalist's mustache see in the real debates of the country and politics.
And until that question is answered, this debate will not end.